Lockner appeals the superior court's summary judgment
dismissal of her claims based on the recreational immunity
statute, RCW 4.24.210. Lockner argues that the superior court
improperly applied the recreational immunity statute because
(1) she provided evidence that the place of her injury was
used for transportation purposes and (2) she brought a
negligence claim rather than a premises liability claim. This
appeal requires us to determine whether Camicia v. Howard
S. Wright Constr. Co. limits recreational immunity to land
opened solely for recreational purposes or whether the
immunity extends to those lands serving multiple purposes.
that summary judgment was improper because Camicia
limited recreational immunity to land opened to the public
solely for recreational purposes and issues of material fact
remain as to whether the area where Lockner was hurt was
opened to the public solely for the purpose of recreational
use. We also hold that the plain language of availability of
RCW 4.24.210 extends to negligence actions. Accordingly, we
reverse and remand for further proceedings.
and her niece were riding their bicycles on the Foothills
Trail in Pierce County. Lockner was riding behind her niece
as they approached a riding lawn mower from the rear. The
lawn mower, operated by a Pierce County Parks and Recreation
employee, was mowing grass on the right side of the trail,
moving in the same direction as Lockner and her niece.
Lockner's niece rode past the lawn mower, and Lockner
followed, attempting to pass with the lawn mower on her
right. Lockner raised her left hand from the handle bars to
shield her eyes from debris in the air from the lawn mower.
She "quickly tried to veer to the left to get off the
trail and that's when I clipped [Lockner's
niece's] bike." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 76
(Deposition of Lockner). Lockner fell and was hurt.
County's website describes the Foothills Trail as:
The Foothills Trail sits atop a historic railroad bed and
snakes through the river valley southeast of Tacoma. This
25-mile-long trail is a popular commuter route and
recreational destination for bicyclists, while hikers
enjoy shorter, more manageable segments of the trail. One of
the most scenic sections for the unobstructed views of nearby
Mt. Rainier begins in Orting and follows the Carbon River
upstream through farmland and forest.
The Foothills Trail is a 12-foot wide non-motorized asphalt
trail/linear park suitable for bicycles, walking, in-line
skates and wheel chairs. It also has a soft shoulder path for
CP at 62 (emphasis added).
County produced a "Pierce County Park, Recreation &
Open Space Plan, " which included a "Regional
Trails Plan" that stated its vision as:
The Pierce County Regional Trails System will be an
accessible and seamless trails network used by people of all
ages and abilities for recreation and
transportation. Pierce County trails will provide
users with the opportunity to experience recreation,
solitude or companionship, and provide a practical
transportation option. It will offer connections to
major developed areas and attractions within the County,
provide opportunities for appreciation of nature, and connect
the County to the greater region.
CP at 59, 65-66 (emphasis added).
filed suit against the County and the employee operating the
lawn mower. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing
that RCW 4.24.210 immunized the County from Lockner's
claims. In support of the motion, the County filed the
declaration of its Superintendent of Parks, which stated that
the Foothills Trail "is open to the public for
recreation between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
" and the Foothills Trail "is not a transportation
corridor." CP at 103. The superior court agreed with the
County and dismissed Lockner's suit. Lockner appeals.
argues that the superior court erred in dismissing her case
against the County on summary judgment because (1) issues of
material fact exist as to the trail's use for
transportation purposes and (2) the recreational immunity
statute applies only to claims for premises liability, not to
her claims for negligence. We hold that summary judgment was
improper because issues of material fact remain as to whether
the Foothills ...